15.6.1 Prevalence of exposure to secondhand smoke in the home
Secondhand smoke (SHS) causes or exacerbates a range of serious health conditions in children and non-smoking adults, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and cancer (see Chapter 4). Children are particularly vulnerable to the harms of secondhand smoke in their homes and cars, given their lack of autonomy and the long hours they spend in these environments. Disadvantaged groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, are also more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke at home (see Chapter 9). Conversely, smokers who keep their home smokefree are more likely to be younger, male, and more highly educated. Smokefree homes are also associated with the presence of non-smokers, particularly children, lower cigarette consumption (or addiction) level, and interest in quitting. 1
In Australia, only a small minority of households with children and non-smokers allow smoking inside the home—see Section 4.5 for a detailed overview of the prevalence of exposure to secondhand smoke in the home.
15.6.2 Factors affecting adoption of smokefree homes
Increasing prevalence of smokefree public places and workplaces has been associated in English-speaking countries with increasing numbers of smokefree homes. 1-4 Despite initial concerns regarding potential displacement of smoking into the home following smokefree legislation, legislative bans on smoking in public places appear to encourage people to establish voluntary home smoking restrictions through their influence on social norms. 3, 5-15 Public smoking bans may also lead to reductions in social inequalities in exposure to secondhand smoke among children. 16
126.96.36.199 Education campaigns
Education campaigns about smoking at home have become a regular part of tobacco control programs. Common themes include raising awareness of the health effects of secondhand smoke on children and encouraging parents to either quit or smoke outside. 17 In Australia, there is some evidence that these campaigns have been moderately helpful in increasing the number of people who make their homes smokefree. 18-20 Education campaigns involving the use of new media may present a low-cost platform for educating families about the importance of not smoking in the home. 21 However, there are likely to be complex social and cultural factors which may affect the extent to which families engage with information on this topic. 22, 23
At an individual level, while there have been some successful community and healthcare-based interventions, 24-27 evidence about the effectiveness of such programs is limited. 28 Interventions by healthcare professionals who provide routine child healthcare may be effective in preventing maternal smoking relapse, thereby reducing children’s exposure to secondhand smoke 28 A 2018 Cochrane review examining the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce children’s exposure to secondhand smoke concluded that while a small number of interventions targeting parents and carers have been shown to reduce exposure and improve children's health, the features of effective interventions remain unclear, and the overall evidence base is very poor quality. The authors also found no clear evidence of differences in levels of success between different settings, including well‐child, ill‐child and community contexts, and limited support for the delivery of more intensive counselling interventions to parent(s). 29 Tobacco control efforts focused on reducing the prevalence of smoking across the entire population may do more to reduce children’s exposure to secondhand smoke than efforts aimed directly at individual parents. 1
Some research has suggested that the provision of personalised feedback about secondhand smoke exposure in the home (such as measuring the level of indoor particulate matter in the home, and providing these measurements to parents together with information regarding health-based exposure guidelines) may assist in motivating parents to stop smoking in the home. 30, 31 A randomised trial in the US found that real-time feedback for air particle levels and brief coaching reduced fine particle levels in homes with smokers and young children. 32 However, even after the successful implementation of interventions that reduce tobacco smoke pollution in homes, contamination remains. Multifaceted individual and population-level strategies are likely necessary to effectively eliminate exposure.
15.6.3 Benefits of smokefree homes
Along with reducing children’s and non-smokers’ exposure to the harmful health effects of secondhand smoke, in its comprehensive evidence review published in 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that smokefree homes can also have positive effects on smoking behaviours. Such restrictions lead to reduced adult smoking—both through reduced consumption and through supporting quit attempts. Smokefree homes may also reduce tobacco use among young people, with evidence showing that fewer teenagers of non-smoking parents who live in smokefree homes initiate smoking compared to children from a home that is not smoke-free. 1
15.6.4 Multi-unit dwellings
‘Neighbour smoke’ is a relatively new concept in tobacco control. 33 Several published studies now have documented significant transfer of secondhand smoke between dwellings in multi-unit apartment complexes. 34, 35 Research conducted in Australia and overseas suggests that people living in multi-unit housing are more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke than those living in separate housing. 36-39 Children in apartments have been found to have higher average cotinine levels (an indicator of tobacco smoke exposure) than children in detached houses. 37 A Korean study of multi-unit housing found that more than half of the homes without smokers had secondhand smoke infiltration, which was associated with wheeze, rhinitis, and eczema symptoms in children. 40 No safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke has been identified. 41
Air sealing and modifications to ventilation can reduce, but not completely eliminate, smoke drift from apartments where residents smoke indoors. 42 Studies measuring air-nicotine concentrations and particulate matter have shown that air pollution increases in homes and common areas located adjacent to areas where smoking occurs. 34, 43, 44 This is because smoke can easily spread via gaps in door and window jambs, mechanical ventilation and air conditioning systems, elevator shafts, hallways, stairwells, cracks in walls, balconies and courtyards. 44
188.8.131.52 Australian regulations on smoking in multi-unit housing
Interest in protecting residents from secondhand smoking in multi-unit developments is growing in Australia. In 2009 the National Preventative Health Taskforce recommended state and territory governments take action to “protect residents from exposure to smoke-drift in multi-unit developments”. 45 The National Tobacco Strategy (2012–2018) includes an action item to “Monitor the issue of smoking and smoke-drift at residential premises and consider policy approaches to support smoke-free homes, particularly where children are present”. It states that responsibility lies with state and territory governments, as well as non-government organisations. 46
While smoking is banned in enclosed common or shared areas of multi-unit housing in several Australian states and territories, private living areas are generally exempt from these bans. However, it may be possible for owners corporations to agree to adopt their own by-laws or rules banning smoking in both common areas and private living areas. In 2011 the owners of a block of apartments in Ashfield, Sydney agreed to a by-law banning smoking anywhere within the building and on balconies, making the building the first multi-unit dwelling in Australia to become 100% smokefree. Furthermore, in the case of Solerno v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 42724, the Supreme Court of New South Wales confirmed the validity of a by-law adopted by an owners corporation which banned smoking on common property and within any private living area.
Where an owners corporation does not adopt its own set of rules or by-laws, the ‘model rules’ or ‘model by-laws’ set out in the relevant state/territory regulations will apply. In most jurisdictions, the model rules or by-laws include a general provision prohibiting residents or visitors from causing a ‘nuisance’ or ‘hazard’ to other residents. Although such provisions do not specifically refer to smoking, it may be possible for residents to rely upon these general provisions to prevent others from smoking on common property or even in private living spaces. A review of strata laws in Australia recommends that State and Territory governments reform their strata laws to provide legislative recognition that secondhand may be considered to be a nuisance or a hazard and include a model by-law on smoking and give owners corporations explicit powers to make by-laws that regulate or completely ban smoking. It notes that the principles of nuisance and hazard have been applied inconsistently between jurisdictions. 47
For example, in 2006 the New South Wales Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal upheld a case brought by occupants of an apartment against their smoking neighbours, requiring them to stop smoking in their adjacent apartment because of smoke drift. 48 The occupants relied on a general by-law which prohibited residents from causing a nuisance to other occupants. This case could precipitate other such actions and give license to rental managers to advise tenants that smoking is banned in rental apartments. However, a number of similar cases brought before Tribunals in Queensland have been dismissed.
New South Wales is currently the only Australian jurisdiction with model by-laws which specifically address the issue of smoking in multi-unit housing. The model by-laws are contained in the Strata Schemes Management Regulation 2016 (NSW), and include a ‘tier’ of by-laws regarding smoking from which an owners corporation can choose. Where an owners corporation has not made a selection between the tiers, the ‘default’ tier will apply. The ‘default’ by-law prohibits smoking on common property, but not in private living areas. However, under the default by-law an owner or occupier has an obligation to ensure that smoke from a private living areas does not penetrate common property or any other private space.
The Queensland Government is undertaking a review of Queensland’s property laws, and is considering (among other matters) the issue of smoke infiltration. The regulation of smoking in private lots and on common property was one of the issues raised during stakeholder meetings. 49 The consultation sought feedback on a proposal to empower owners corporations to prohibit smoking on balconies, or where a structure is within four metres of another structure on an adjacent lot, as well as any other ideas regarding how smoking could be dealt with by owners corporations. The Options Paper for the review noted: “The law has increasingly recognised a need to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of second hand smoke in public areas and workplaces. There is little reason not to extend this protection to people in a community title scheme. Residential bodies corporate are one of the only places of concentrated occupation to which no power is given to restrict (or prohibit) smoking except on common property.” 49 The final report released in 2017 recommended: “A by-law prohibiting smoking in an outdoor area that is part of a lot (including balconies, courtyards, etc) or on common property (including common property subject to an exclusive use by-law) should be enforceable against lot owners and occupiers if: the original owner includes the by-law in the schedule of by-laws attached to the first community management statement (CMS) for the scheme; or the body corporate adopts the by-law by a resolution without dissent. Aside from this different threshold required to adopt the by-law, a no smoking by-law will be added to the CMS and enforceable in the same way as any other by-law for the scheme. Amending or removing a no smoking by-law will also require a resolution without dissent. For the removal of doubt, the adoption of this recommendation will require a change to the power of the body corporate to regulate activity so that prohibition on smoking in an outdoor area that is part of a lot or on common property where that smoke drifts to an adjacent lot is permissible and not unreasonable or oppressive.” 50
The Australian Capital Territory recognises smoke-drift in multi-unit developments as part of its work on restricting places of tobacco use under its plan ‘ Future directions for tobacco reduction in the ACT 2013–2016’. 51 In 2018, the ACT Government released a fact sheet on managing smoke drift in multi-unit developments. It recommends using existing by-laws in the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 to address smoke drift that prohibit hazards or nuisances, or the mechanism whereby an owners corporation can move to amend rules. 52
In Victoria, the issue of smoke infiltration in multi-unit housing is being considered as part of a review undertaken by Consumer Affairs Victoria regarding the state’s consumer property laws. In an Options Paper released in November 2016, Consumer Affairs Victoria sought feedback regarding a proposal to amend Victoria’s existing model rules to include a specific rule addressing smoking in multi-unit housing (among other things). 53, 54 The proposed amendment to the Owners Corporations Act 2006 was released for public consultation in 2019, and allows for owners corporations to make rules “Regulating or prohibiting the drifting of tobacco smoke from a lot in a multi-level development”. 55 Quit Victoria, while broadly supporting the amendment, recommended that it be broadened to ensure that owners corporations in both single and multi-level developments have the power to make rules addressing smoking; that owners corporations be given the power to specifically regulate or prohibit smoking (rather than the ‘drifting of smoke’); that owners corporations be given a clear power to prohibit or regulate smoking in both common areas and private lots (rather than private lots only); and that there be a choice of Model Rules available to owners corporations regarding the issue of smoking, with all choices prohibiting smoking in circumstances where smoke is able to infiltrate neighbouring private lots or common property. Subject to the resolution of any issues raised during the consultation process, the Bill should be introduced into Parliament later in 2019. 55
184.108.40.206 International trends in regulation of smoking in multi-unit housing
Internationally, there are growing calls for smoke-free multi-unit housing policies to protect the health of occupants. 56, 57 In particular, smoke-free laws and policies affecting multi-unit housing are becoming more prevalent in the US. Since 2009, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development has been strongly encouraging public housing authorities to adopt smoke-free policies. On 30 November 2016 the Department issued a final rule requiring Public Housing Authorities to adopt and implement a smokefree policy for all of their public housing properties by July 31, 2018. 58
Laws addressing smoking in multi-unit housing are also becoming more prevalent among US state and local governments. For example, state law in Utah recognises that tobacco smoke that drifts into a residential unit may be considered a ‘nuisance’. 59 Furthermore, a number of Californian local governments have enacted local laws prohibiting smoking in both private and common areas of multi-unit residences. Oregon and Maine mandate that rules (or absence of rules) about smoking must be disclosed to potential renters. 47
In Canada, while there are no federal laws that restrict smoking in private areas of multi-unit housing, laws in most Provinces and Territories prohibit smoking in common areas. Saskatchewan and the Yukon have implemented comprehensive smoking bans in publicly owned or leased properties. 60 Some municipal governments have also adopted smokefree policies in their public multi-unit housing and no law prohibits privately owned complexes from voluntarily adopting 100% smokefree policies. 47
220.127.116.11 Benefits of smoke-free policies in multi-unit housing
Research undertaken in the US indicates that smokefree policies in multi-unit housing reduce resident exposure to secondhand smoke, 61 decrease daily cigarette consumption amongst smoking residents, encourage smoking cessation and increase quit attempts. 62 Another US study found that while low-income smokers were significantly less likely to live
in smokefree homes, those who did live in such homes were much more likely to be successful quitters, suggesting that smokefree housing policies may be particularly beneficial for disadvantaged groups. 63
In addition, cost analyses indicate that there are considerable economic benefits associated with implementing smokefree policies in multi-unit residences, and that these benefits outweigh any implementation costs. 35, 64 Landlords have tended to over-estimate the negative commercial impact of proposed smoke-free policies. 65, 66 Following implementation, the actual impact of smoke-free policies on vacancy and turnover has been shown to be negligible, neutral or positive. 67, 68 A study of landlords who had implemented smokefree policies in apartment buildings in Douglas County Nebraska found that anticipated adverse consequences generally did not occur. 67 One US study estimated that prohibiting smoking in all US subsidised housing would result in cost savings of approximately $521 million per year. 69 The estimated savings were calculated based on reduced health care costs, reduced renovation costs, and reduced incidence or risk of smoking related fires. Several high-rise apartment building fires in Melbourne in recent years have been caused by cigarettes 70 (see also Section 3.19).
However, policy alone appears to be insufficient in reducing exposure and changing smoking behaviours. Several US studies have reported challenges with compliance since implementing smoking bans in multi-unit housing. 71-73 Residents of public housing in the US have suggested that improving access to cessation services, ongoing resident engagement, education and communication to address misconceptions and concerns about enforcement, and framing the policy as part of a broader wellness initiative could help increase compliance. 71, 74 The American Lung Association and Mental Health America announced in 2018 that they would be providing additional support for public housing residents living with behavioural health issues, such as mental illness and substance use disorders, to adjust to the new smokefree policy, remain in their homes and, for those interested in quitting, have access to cessation programs and services. 75
18.104.22.168 Public support for smoking bans in multi-unit housing
Although there is limited Australian research on support for smoking bans in multi-unit housing, only a small minority of Australians allow smoking in their home (see Section 4.5), suggesting that most people would support such measures. A 2017 survey found that 18 per cent of Victorians had been exposed to smoke drift at home in the previous week, and 85 per cent supported a ban on smoking in shared corridors, stairwells or laundries. 76 Cancer Councils across Australia report being contacted by many distressed residents of multi-unit housing, as well as landlords and representatives of owners corporations, looking for advice in how to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. 47
International research has shown high levels of interest by owners, occupiers and managers in adopting smokefree policies. 77 A Canadian survey found that 46% of apartment dwellers had experienced smoke from a neighbour seeping into their apartment and 64% would prefer to live in an entirely smokefree complex. 78 In a survey published in 2010, the majority of apartment owners in New York expressed interest in introducing smokefree policies. 79 Prior to the implementation of smokefree public housing, most US adults expressed support for such a ban, although support was lower among smokers. 80 Although the US has banned smoking in public housing, the ban does not extend to private rentals that are subsidised for low-income residents. A survey of US adults found high levels of support for extending the bans to all indoor areas of multi-unit buildings that house such residents, even where some units were non-subsidised. 81 Another US study found multi-unit housing residents living with children strongly supported smokefree multi-unit housing. 82
22.214.171.124 Rationale for restricting smoking in cars
Australians spend a considerable amount of time in their cars. In Australia in 2012, approximately 7 in 10 (71%) adults travelled to work or full-time study primarily by car. The majority (88%) also used a car to get other places, such as to go shopping or visiting family and friends. 83 A 2018 survey found that almost two in three Australian children (64%) were being driven to school most days. 84 The family car has therefore traditionally been a source of significant secondhand smoke exposure among children. 85-87
The low air change rates of motor vehicles—designed to shelter occupants from air pollutants entering from outside a vehicle—also work to concentrate pollution from any sources inside the vehicle. Smoking just one or two cigarettes inside a car can substantially increase passengers’ exposure to tobacco smoke pollution, 88-90 even with the windows down. 86, 91, 92 This concentrated exposure can lead to serious health outcomes. A 2007 Australian study found that children exposed to tobacco smoke in the family vehicle were more likely to develop a persistent wheeze than those exposed in the home only. 93 Further, such exposure in cars is associated with an increased risk of smoking uptake in adolescence. 94 A study published in 2008 showed an increase in symptoms of nicotine dependence in children who had never smoked but who were exposed to tobacco smoke in cars. 95
Previously, private cars were regarded as the domain of the domestic environment, and therefore beyond the reach of regulation 96 Public acceptance of smokefree policies in the hospitality industry, concern about the health and rights of children as well as increasing regulation of the behaviour of motorists—including prohibition of the use of mobile phones—appear to have been some of the factors that have made the public and governments more amenable to the idea of prohibiting smoking in cars when children are present. 2, 97-102
In October 1995, a world-first study was published that measured support among adults in New South Wales for regulation of smoking in cars carrying children. 103 A substantial majority of respondents agreed that it should be illegal to smoke in cars when travelling with children (72%), 27% disagreed and 1% were undecided. The majority of smokers (63%), also agreed with a ban 104
In November 1995, a working party on the effects of passive smoking of the National Health Advisory Committee released a draft report, The Health Effects of Passive Smoking . The working party recommended that the ‘legal prohibition of smoking in private motor vehicles during periods when minors are passengers should be considered by State and Territory governments’ (p214). 105
Results from a large-scale population health survey in New South Wales reveal that by 2008, the vast majority of adults (88.2%) reported that smoking was not allowed in their car, a significant increase from 2003 (81.2%). A significantly lower proportion of people in the lowest socio-economic group (84.8%) and young adults aged 16–24 years (82.1%) reported smoking was not allowed in their car compared with the overall adult population.
126.96.36.199 Legislation banning smoking in cars in Australia
All Australian states and territories now have legislation in force which prohibits smoking in cars while children are present.
In June 2006, more than a decade after the issue of smoking in cars was first discussed in Australia, the Tasmanian Government released a discussion paper that included a proposal to ban smoking in cars carrying children in that state. 106 In March 2007 a proposal to introduce legislation banning smoking in cars carrying children under 18 was announced. 107 A Bill to amend s.67H(2) of the Public Health Act 1997 (Tas.) was passed and came into force on 19 December 2007, making Tasmania the first Australian jurisdiction to implement such a ban.
In February 2006, the South Australian Democrats proposed legislation to ban smoking in cars carrying children aged under 12 108 softening their previous position from a total smoking ban in cars. In August 2006 the South Australian Government announced plans to ban smoking in cars carrying children under the age of 16 with penalties of up to $200 applying. The Bill was passed in March 2007 and came into effect on 31 May 2007, World No Tobacco Day, making South Australia the first state in Australia to ban smoking in cars with children. The first reports of fines appeared in July 2007. 109
In November 2006, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing issued a media release urging the states and territories to enact legislation banning smoking in cars. 110 The possibility of national coordinated action for a ban was raised, but failed to be adopted at the December 2006 meeting of the Ministerial Council Drug Strategy.
In New South Wales smoking in cars when children are present was banned under the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008 (NSW) from July 2009.
In 2009 the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act 2009 was introduced into Western Australia’s State Parliament by Dr Janet Woollard as a Private Member’s Bill. The new law was passed and smoking in cars when children under the age of 17 years are present was banned in Western Australia from 22 September 2009.
In 2009, the Australian Capital Territory Government expressed concern about the issue of smoking in cars, and released a discussion paper in 2009. 111 On 20 October 2011, the Smoking in Cars with Children (Prohibition) Act 2011 (ACT) was passed. The Act came into force on 1 May 2012, and prohibits smoking in cars when a person under the age of 16 is present.
Similar bans were introduced in both Queensland and Victoria on 1 January 2010. 112, 113
The Northern Territory was the last Australian jurisdiction to introduce a ban on smoking in cars when children are present. The relevant legislative provision came into operation on 1 December 2014, and applies where children under the age of 16 are present. 114
Table 15.6.1 provides a summary of legislation banning smoking on cars with children present in each Australian state/territory.
Summary of state/territory legislation concerning smoking in cars with minors
188.8.131.52 Restrictions on smoking in cars in countries outside Australia
Like Australia, all Canadian provinces and territories have implemented bans on smoking in cars with children. At least seven US states—Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Maine, Oregon, Utah and Vermont—have banned smoking in cars when children are present, along with the US territories of Puerto Rico and Guam. 115 The legislation in Guam also prohibits smoking in cars with pregnant women, 116 and many states ban smoking in cars when foster children are present. 115 France, Ireland, the UK, Mauritius, Bahrain, Cyprus, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates have also implemented bans on smoking in cars with children present.
Summary of legislation concerning smoking in cars with minors—as at 2017
Source: Global Advisors on Smokefree Policy 115 and Public Health Law Centre 116
^Note: Guam is US territory in the Western Pacific; Puerto Rico is US territory in the Caribbean
15.6.6 Home health and community care workers
Community nurses and other health and welfare workers may be repeatedly exposed to secondhand smoke while working with clients living in their own home or in community supported accommodation outside institutions. 117, 118 This is an occupational health and safety issue for these workers, and some institutions in the UK and Australia insist as a matter of policy that clients do not smoke in their presence. The Aged and Community Services Association of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory for instance advises agencies that all clients should be advised not to smoke in the presence of workers. 119
Relevant news and research
For recent news items and research on this topic, click here. ( Last updated March 2020)
1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: Survey Report. Drug statistics series no. 28, AIHW cat. no. PHE 183.Canberra: AIHW, 2014. Available from: Available at: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129549469
1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Evaluating the effectiveness of smoke-free policies. Handbooks of cancer prevention, tobacco control, vol. 13.Lyon, France: IARC, 2009. Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/prev/handbook13/index.php.
2. Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Anderson S, et al. Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: Findings from the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(suppl. 3):iii42–50. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/suppl_3/iii42
3. Cheng KW, Okechukwu CA, McMillen R, and Glantz SA. Association between clean indoor air laws and voluntary smokefree rules in homes and cars. Tobacco Control, 2013. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24114562
4. Moore GF, Moore L, Littlecott HJ, Ahmed N, Lewis S, et al. Prevalence of smoking restrictions and child exposure to secondhand smoke in cars and homes: A repeated cross-sectional survey of children aged 10-11 years in Wales. BMJ Open, 2015; 5(1):e006914. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25636793
5. Cheng K-W, Glantz SA, and Lightwood JM. Association between smokefree laws and voluntary smokefree-home rules. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2011; 41(6). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099232
6. Edwards R, Thomson G, Wilson N, Waa A, Bullen C, et al. After the smoke has cleared: Evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand. Tobacco Control, 2008; 17(1):e2. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/1/e2
7. Akhtar PC, Haw SJ, Currie DB, Zachary R, and Currie CE. Smoking restrictions in the home and secondhand smoke exposure among primary schoolchildren before and after introduction of the scottish smoke-free legislation. Tobacco Control, 2009; 18(5):409–15. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/5/409
8. Queensland Health. Review of smokefree laws: Discussion paper. Brisbane, Australia: Government of Queensland, 2007. Available from: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/136214/20120914-1300/www.health.qld.gov.au/tobaccolaws/documents/33161.pdf.
9. Monson E and Arsenault N. Effects of enactment of legislative (public) smoking bans on voluntary home smoking restrictions: A review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2017; 19(2):141–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27613902
10. Nazar GP, Lee JT, Glantz SA, Arora M, Pearce N, et al. Association between being employed in a smoke-free workplace and living in a smoke-free home: Evidence from 15 low and middle income countries. Preventive Medicine, 2014; 59:47–53. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24287123
11. Jarvis MJ and Feyerabend C. Recent trends in children's exposure to second-hand smoke in England: Cotinine evidence from the health survey for England. Addiction, 2015. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26061741
12. Liang LA, Weber A, Herr C, Hendrowarsito L, Meyer N, et al. Children's exposure to second-hand smoke before and after the smoking ban in bavaria-a multiple cross-sectional study. European Journal of Public Health, 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27418584
13. Wang Y-T, Tsai Y-W, Tsai T-I, and Chang P-Y. Children's exposure to secondhand smoke at home before and after smoke-free legislation in taiwan. Tobacco Control, 2017; 26(6):690–6. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/26/6/690.full.pdf
14. Lidon-Moyano C, Martinez-Sanchez JM, Fu M, Ballbe M, Martin-Sanchez JC, et al. Impact of the spanish smoking legislations in the adoption of smoke-free rules at home: A longitudinal study in barcelona (spain). Tobacco Control, 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27625409
15. Ferketich AK, Lugo A, La Vecchia C, Fernandez E, Boffetta P, et al. Relation between national-level tobacco control policies and individual-level voluntary home smoking bans in Europe. Tobacco Control, 2016; 25(1):60–5. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/1/60.abstract
16. Nanninga S, Lehne G, Ratz T, and Bolte G. Impact of public smoking bans on social inequalities in children’s exposure to tobacco smoke at home: An equity-focused systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2018:nty139–nty. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty139
17. Borland R, Mullins R, Trotter L, and White V. Trends in environmental tobacco smoke restrictions in the home in Victoria, Australia. Tobacco Control, 1999; 8(3):266–71. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/8/3/266
18. Wen L, Hua M, and Rissel C. Changes in smoke-free home status in an immigrant lebanese community in sydney, Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 2002; 26(1):78–9. Available from: http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/ANZJPH2002-1February.pdf
19. Yiow L. Australia: Campaign gets smoking parents to cut down. Tobacco Control, 2005; 14(6):363. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/6/363
20. McCarthy M, Germain D, and Durkin S. Evaluation of the ‘smokefree homes and cars’ campaign, 2007. CBRC Research Paper Series, no. 36.Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 2008. Available from: http://www.cancervic.org.au/eval_smokefree_homes_cars_cbrc.html.
21. Rosen LJ, Myers V, Winickoff JP, and Kott J. Effectiveness of interventions to reduce tobacco smoke pollution in homes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2015; 12(12):16043–59. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26694440
22. Savas LS, Mullen PD, Hovell MF, Escoffrey C, Fernandez ME, et al. A qualitative study among Mexican Americans to understand factors influencing the adoption and enforcement of home smoking bans. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27698093
23. Rowa-Dewar N and Amos A. Disadvantaged parents' engagement with a national secondhand smoke in the home mass media campaign: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2016; 13(9):pii: E901. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27618085
24. Alwan N, Siddiqi K, Thomson H, Lane J, and Cameron I. Can a community-based 'smoke-free homes' intervention persuade families to apply smoking restrictions at homes? Journal of Public Health, 2011; 33(1):48–54. Available from: http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/07/pubmed.fdq073.long
25. Akkar OB, Yildiz C, Karakus S, Akkar I, Cetin A, et al. Antenatal counseling against passive smoking may improve birth weight for gestational age. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015; 42(6):805–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26753491
26. Mullen PD, Savas LS, Bundy LT, Haardorfer R, Hovell M, et al. Minimal intervention delivered by 2-1-1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: A texas generalisation trial. Tobacco Control, 2016; 25(Suppl 1):i10–i8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27697943
27. Bundy LT, Haardorfer R, Kegler MC, Owolabi S, Berg CJ, et al. Disseminating a smoke free homes program to low ses households in the US through 2-1-1: Results of a national impact evaluation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30517679
28. Daly JB, Mackenzie LJ, Freund M, Wolfenden L, Roseby R, et al. Interventions by health care professionals who provide routine child health care to reduce tobacco smoke exposure in children: A review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr, 2016; 170(2):138–47. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26719991
29. Behbod B, Sharma M, Baxi R, Roseby R, and Webster P. Family and carer smoking control programmes for reducing children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018; 1:CD001746. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29383710
30. Harutyunyan A, Movsisyan N, Petrosyan V, Petrosyan D, and Stillman F. Reducing children's exposure to secondhand smoke at home: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 2013; 132(6):1071–80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24190686
31. Wilson I, Semple S, Mills LM, Ritchie D, Shaw A, et al. Refresh—reducing families' exposure to secondhand smoke in the home: A feasibility study. Tobacco Control, 2013; 22(5):e8. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/5/e8
32. Hughes SC, Bellettiere J, Nguyen B, Liles S, Klepeis NE, et al. Randomized trial to reduce air particle levels in homes of smokers and children. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29305069
< 33. Brink AL and Clemmensen IH. 'Neighbour smoke': Proposal for a new term. Tobacco Control, 2011; 20(3):250. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20974621
34. King B, Travers M, Cummings K, Mahoney M, and Hyland A. Secondhand smoke transfer in multiunit housing. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2010; 12(11):1133–41. Available from: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/01/ntr.ntq162.full
35. Snyder K, Vick JH, and King BA. Smoke-free multiunit housing: A review of the scientific literature. Tobacco Control, 2016; 25(1):9–20. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/1/9.abstract
36. Bonevski B, Paul C, Jones A, Bisquera A, and Regan T. Smoky homes: Gender, socioeconomic and housing disparities in second hand tobacco smoke (shs) exposure in a large population-based Australian cohort. Preventive Medicine, 2014; 60:95–101. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24380792
37. Wilson K, Klein J, Blumkin A, Gottlieb M, and Winickoff J. Tobacco-smoke exposure in children who live in multiunit housing. Pediatrics, 2011; 127(1):85–92. Available from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2010-2046v1
38. Wilson KM, Torok M, McMillen R, Tanski S, Klein JD, et al. Tobacco smoke incursions in multiunit housing. American Journal of Public Health, 2014; 104(8):1445–53. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24922124
39. Chambers C, Sung HY, and Max W. Home exposure to secondhand smoke among people living in multiunit housing and single family housing: A study of California adults, 2003-2012. J Urban Health, 2015; 92(2):279–90. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25466438
40. Kim J, Lee E, Lee K, and Kim K. Relationships between secondhand smoke incursion and wheeze, rhinitis, and eczema symptoms in children living in homes without smokers in multi-unit housing. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29518241
41. US Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm.
42. Bohac DL, Hewett MJ, Hammond SK, and Grimsrud DT. Secondhand smoke transfer and reductions by air sealing and ventilation in multi-unit buildings: Pft and nicotine verification. Indoor Air, 2011; 21(1):36–44. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20846212
43. Neumann J. Smoke-free building policies cut indoor exposure: Study. Reuters, 2014. Available from: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/us-health-pollution-indoor-smoking-idUKKBN0GZ2C820140904
44. Russo ET, Hulse TE, Adamkiewicz G, Levy DE, Bethune L, et al. Comparison of indoor air quality in smoke-permitted and smoke-free multiunit housing: Findings from the boston housing authority. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2015; 17(3):316–22. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25156526
45. Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: The healthiest country by 2020—national preventative health strategy—the roadmap for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. Available from: http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/CCD7323311E358BECA2575FD000859E1/$File/nphs-roadmap.pdf.
46. Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs, National tobacco strategy 2012-2018. Australian Government; 2012. Available from: http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/national_ts_2012_2018.
47. Bell J, Dale B, Kameron C, and Havill M. Sharing the air: The need for strata law reform to reduce second-hand smoke exposure in multiunit housing in Australia. J Law Med, 2018; 25(2):465–88. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29978648
48. Munro C. Neighbours see off smokers in tribunal. Sydney Morning Herald, 2007; 28 February. Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/neighbours-see-off-smokers-in-tribunal/2007/02/27/1172338624538.html
49. Commercial and Property Law Research Centre. Queensland government property law review options paper. Body corporate governance issues: By-laws, debt recovery and scheme termination 2014. Available from: http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/334758/Property-law-review-Body-Corporate-Governance-Options-Paper-1.pdf.
50. Queensland Government. Review of property law in Queensland. 2019. Available from: https://www.justice.qld.gov.au/community-engagement/community-consultation/community-consultation-activities/past-activities/review-of-property-law-in-queensland.
51. ACT Department of Health. Future directions for tobacco reduction in the act, 2013-2016. Canberra Available from: http://www.health.act.gov.au/sites/default/files/Future%20directions%20for%20tobacco%20reduction%20in%20the%20ACT%202013-2016.pdf.
52. ACT Department of Health. Managing smoke drift in multi-unit developments 2018. Available from: https://health.act.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-09/Smoking%20-%20Managing%20smoke-drift%20in%20multi-unit%20developments.pdf.
53. Smokefree environment act 2000 (NSW), sections 6 and 7. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sea2000247/.
54. Environment protection regulation, 2005 (ACT). Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_reg/epr2005375/index.html.
55. Consumer Affairs Victoria. Owners corporations and other acts amendment bill - exposure draft consultation, 2019. Available from: https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/resources-and-tools/legislation/public-consultations-and-reviews/owners-corporations-and-other-acts-amendment-bill-exposure-draft-consultation.
56. Leung LT, Ho SY, Wang MP, Lo WS, and Lam TH. Exposure to secondhand smoke from neighbours and respiratory symptoms in never-smoking adolescents in hong kong: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 2015; 5(11):e008607. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26537497
57. Farber HJ, Groner J, Walley S, and Nelson K. Protecting children from tobacco, nicotine, and tobacco smoke. Pediatrics, 2015; 136(5):e1439–e67. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26504135
58. Instituting smoke-free public housing. 2016. Available from: https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=smokefreephfinalrule.pdf.
59. Utah code ann, 78b, chapter 6, part 11, section 1101 (3) (2010). Available from: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title78B/Chapter6/78B-6-S1101.html?v=C78B-6-S1101_1800010118000101.
60. Giles D. Smoking to be banned on saskatchewan housing corporation properties. Global News, 2018. Available from: https://globalnews.ca/news/4285781/smoking-ban-saskatchewan-housing-corporation/
61. Klassen AC, Lee NL, Pankiewicz A, Ward R, Shuster M, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure and smoke-free policy in philadelphia public housing. Tob Regul Sci, 2017; 3(2):192–203. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28944277
62. Young W, Karp S, Bialick P, Liverance C, Seder A, et al. Health, secondhand smoke exposure, and smoking behavior impacts of no-smoking policies in public housing, colorado, 2014-2015. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2016; 13:E148. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27763830
63. Vijayaraghavan M, Benmarnhia T, Pierce JP, White MM, Kempster J, et al. Income disparities in smoking cessation and the diffusion of smoke-free homes among US smokers: Results from two longitudinal surveys. PLoS ONE, 2018; 13(7):e0201467. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201467
64. King BA, Peck RM, and Babb SD. National and state cost savings associated with prohibiting smoking in subsidized and public housing in the United States. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2014; 11:E171. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25275808
65. Burdette LK, Rowe GC, Johansen L, Kerkvliet JL, Nagelhout E, et al. A statewide assessment of smoke-free policy in multiunit housing settings. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2014; 16(12):1593–8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25059499
66. Stein AH, Baker LE, Agans RP, Xue W, Collins NM, et al. The experience with smoke-free policies in affordable multiunit housing in north carolina: A statewide survey. American Journal of Health Promotion, 2016; 30(5):382–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27404647
67. Cramer ME, Roberts S, and Stevens E. Landlord attitudes and behaviors regarding smoke-free policies: Implications for voluntary policy change. Public Health Nursing, 2011; 28(1):3–12. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1525-1446.2010.00904.x/full
68. Hewett MJ, Sandell SD, Anderson J, and Niebuhr M. Secondhand smoke in apartment buildings: Renter and owner or manager perspectives. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2007; 9(Suppl 1):S39–S47. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17365725
69. King BA, Peck RM, and Babb SD. Cost savings associated with prohibiting smoking in US subsidized housing. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2013; 44(6):631–4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572888/
70. Moore G. Commonwealth won't pay for cladding fix, telling states to cough up. 7News, 2019. Available from: https://7news.com.au/business/infrastructure/vic-sets-up-cladding-rectification-fund-c-289976
71. Anthony J, Goldman R, Rees VW, Frounfelker RL, Davine J, et al. Qualitative assessment of smoke-free policy implementation in low-income housing: Enhancing resident compliance. American Journal of Health Promotion, 2018:890117118776090. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29772910
72. Kegler MC, Lea J, Lebow-Skelley E, Lefevre AM, Diggs P, et al. Implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies in public housing. Health Education Research, 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30624678
73. Petersen A, Stewart H, Walters J, and Vijayaraghavan M. Smoking policy change within permanent supportive housing. Journal of Community Health, 2017. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28884243
74. Jiang N, Thorpe L, Kaplan S, and Shelley D. Perceptions about the federally mandated smoke-free housing policy among residents living in public housing in New York city. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018; 15(10). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30241291
75. American Lung Association. American lung association and mental health America partner to support residents in smokefree public housing transition Pharmiweb, 2018. Available from: https://www.pharmiweb.com/PressReleases/pressrel.asp?ROW_ID=281574
76. No authors listed. Cancer council survey: Victorians want an apartment smoking ban. The Herald Sun, 2017. Available from: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/cancer-council-survey-victorians-want-an-apartment-smoking-ban/news-story/38b82ab4943dca6503d949ecb95a9fe8
77. Farley SM, Waddell EN, Coady MH, Grimshaw V, Wright DA, et al. Correlates of smoke-free housing policies and interest in implementing policies among multiunit housing owners in New York city. J Urban Health, 2015. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25670210
78. Ontario Tobacco-free Network. Ontario majority wants smoke-free apartments. Ontario Tobacco-free Network, University of Toronto, 2007. Available from: http://www.theotn.org/PDF/FINAL%20News%20release%20MUDs.pdf
79. King B, Travers M, Cummings K, Mahoney M, and Hyland A. Prevalence and predictors of smoke-free policy implementation and support among owners and managers of multiunit housing. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2009; 12(2):159–63. Available from: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ntp175v1
80. Wang TW, Lemos PR, McNabb S, and King BA. Attitudes toward smoke-free public housing among US adults, 2016. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2018; 54(1):113–8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29153476
81. McMillen RC, Winickoff JP, Gottlieb MA, Tanski S, Wilson K, et al. Public support for smoke-free section 8 public housing. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2019:193945919826238. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30741120
82. Wilson KM, Torok MR, McMillen RC, Klein JD, Levy DE, et al. Tobacco-smoke incursions and satisfaction among residents with children in multiunit housing, United States, 2013. Public Health Rep, 2017:33354917732767. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28977766
83. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 4102.0 - Australian social trends, July 2013 2013. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40July+2013.
84. LiveLighter. A nation of 'car potatoes', 2018. Available from: https://livelighter.com.au/news/A-nation-of-car-potatoes.
85. Vardavas CI, Linardakis M, and Kafatos AG. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in motor vehicles: A preliminary study. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(5):415. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/15/5/415
86. Edwards R, Wilson N, and Pierse N. Highly hazardous air quality associated with smoking in cars: New Zealand pilot study. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 2006; 119(1244):U2294. Available from: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/119-1244/2294/
87. Rees VW and Connolly GN. Measuring air quality to protect children from secondhand smoke in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2006; 31(5):363–8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046406
88. Ott W, Klepeis N, and Switzer P. Air change rates of motor vehicles and in-vehicle pollutant concentrations from secondhand smoke. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 2008; 18(3):312–25. Available from: http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v18/n3/abs/7500601a.html
89. Sohn H and Lee K. Impact of smoking on in-vehicle fine particle exposure during driving. Atmospheric Environment, 2010; 44(28):3465–8. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310
90. Northcross AL, Trinh M, Kim J, Jones IA, Meyers MJ, et al. Particulate mass and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exposure from secondhand smoke in the back seat of a vehicle. Tobacco Control, 2014; 23(1):14–20. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/1/14
91. Sendzik T, Fong G, Travers M, and Hyland A. An experimental investigation of tobacco smoke pollution in cars. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2009; 11(6):627–34. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19351785
92. Scheitel M, Stanic M, and Neuberger M. Pm 10, pm 2.5, pm 1, number and surface of particles at the child’s seat when smoking a cigarette in a car. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016; 34(4):582–91. Available from: http://www.aimspress.com/article/10.3934/environsci.2016.4.582
93. Sly P, Deverell M, Kusel M, and Holt P. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in cars increases the risk of persistent wheeze in adolescents. Medical Journal of Australia, 2007; 186(6):322. Available from: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_06_190307/letters_190307_fm.pdf
94. Glover M, Scragg R, Min S, Kira A, Nosa V, et al. Driving kids to smoke? Children's reported exposure to smoke in cars and early smoking initiation. Addictive Behaviors, 2011; 36(11):1027–31. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21733632
95. Bélanger M, O'Loughlin J, Okoli C, McGrath J, Setia M, et al. Nicotine dependence symptoms among young never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke. Addictive Behaviors, 2008; 33(12):1557–63. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760878
96. Thomson G, Hudson S, Wilson N, and Edwards R. A qualitative case study of policy maker views about the protection of children from smoking in cars. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2010; 12(9):970-7. Available from: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/ntq124v1
97. Dunn J, Greenbank S, McDowell M, Mahoney MC, Mazerolle P, et al. Community knowledge, attitudes and behaviours about environmental tobacco smoke in homes and cars. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2008; 19(2):113–17. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18647124
98. Carter SM and Chapman S. Smokers and non-smokers talk about regulatory options in tobacco control. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(5):398–404. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/5/398
99. Jalleh G, Donovan RJ, Stewart S, and Sullivan D. Is there public support for banning smoking in motor vehicles? Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(1):71. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/15/1/71
100. Sweda E, Gottlieb M, and Porfiri R. Protecting children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Tobacco Control, 1998; 7:1–2. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/7/1/1
101. Jarvie J and Malone R. Children’s secondhand smoke exposure in private homes and cars: An ethical analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 2009; 98(12):2140–5. Available from: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/98/12/2140
102. Pawson R, Owen L, and Wong G. Legislating for health: Locating the evidence. Journal of Public Health Policy, 2010; 31(2):164–77. Available from: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v31/n2/full/jphp20105a.html
103. Bauman A, Chen XC, and Chapman S. Protecting children in cars from tobacco smoke. British Medical Journal, 1995; 311(7013):1164. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7013/1164
104. Freeman B, Chapman S, and Storey P. Banning smoking in cars carrying children: An analytical history of a public health advocacy campaign. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 2008; 32(1):60–5. Available from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00167.x
105. National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking: A scientific information paper. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1997.
106. Tasmania Department of Health and Human Services. Discussion paper: Strengthening measures to protect children from tobacco. Hobart 2006. Available from: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/agency/pro/tobacco/documents/DISCUSSION_PAPER.PDF.
107. Paine M. Car cigs ban on way raft of smoking rules clear cabinet. Hobart Mercury, 2007; 2 March.
108. Election countdown - 29 days to go democrats' smoke ban. The Advertiser, 2006; 17 February.
109. Australian Associated Press. Crackdown on smoking in cars with kids. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2007; 30 July. Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Crackdown-on-smoking-in-cars-with-kids/2007/07/30/1185647781693.html
110. Pyne C. Support for ban on smoking in cars with kids, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Editor 2006. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/1EAD261F86826FA3CA25723400743D03/$File/pyn081.pdf.
111. Gallagher K. Exploring options for managing smoking in motor vehicles when children are present: Consultation paper. Canberra, Australia: ACT Government, 2009. Available from: http://www.health.act.gov.au/c/health?a=da&did=10010771&pid=1230850379.
112. Tobacco and other smoking products act 1998 (qld), section 26vc. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/taospa1998339/.
113. Tobacco act 1987 (vic), section 5s. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ta198773/.
114. Tobacco control act (nt), section 11a., 2002. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/consol_act/tca163/.
115. GASP. Smoke-free vehicles when children are present. Summit New Jersey: Global Advisors on Smokefree Policy, 2015. Available from: http://www.njgasp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/f_SF-carskids-info-arguments.pdf.
116. Public Health Law Center. US prohibitions on smoking in cars with children. 2017. Available from: https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/Prohibitions-Chart-Smoking-With-Children-Cars-2017.pdf.
117. L'Heureux J. Second-hand smoke exposure: Responses from home care and therapeutic group home nurses: A call to action. Home Healthc Nurse, 2009; 27(2):114–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19212225
118. Angus K and Semple S. Home health and community care workers’ occupational exposure to secondhand smoke: A rapid literature review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2018. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty226
119. Aged & Community Services Association of NSW & ACT Inc. Smoking clients: What you should do. Sydney: Aged Care OHS Info, 2010. Available from: http://www.agedcareohs.info/pages/ohs_manage/ohs03p_smoking.html.